These numbers are as they seem. The total gross derivative exposure is 29 trillion pounds. I deal with banks – but I am not used to dealing in trillions of pounds. I don’t think anyone is.

The gross credit swaps are 2.4 trillion pounds – but mysteriously the fair values (both assets and liabilities) are low. Only the fair values go in the consolidated balance sheet so if you were to mark these like some people do the balance sheet would be much larger. (There is mismarking in someones book - but it may not be Barclays).

You guys are probably right its mainly derivatives causing the big losses. But it is also amazing how horrific the loans they have made are. For example imagine a new suburb being developed. It maybe could support 1 outdoor shopping center. But the idiots will be building 3 or 4 full size shopping malls in the area. Somebody has those loans on their balance sheet.

The overbuilding of retail is astounding in my area. There are a number of brand new strip malls that have been opened in the past few years which might be 40% occupied. The demographics of the area have shown growth, but nothing compared to the increase in retail square footage.

The entire country-consumers, governments, and financial institutions-has been on a drunken spending spree since about 1984. When Reagan took office, the personal savings rate was around 10%. When Clinton took office it had dipped below 5%. By Bush II's inauguration it had slipped to about 2%. A few years ago, it hit 0% and is negative now.

This all occurred in a period of sustained economic GROWTH. The entire value system of "saving for a rainy day", buying only what one could reasonably afford and other sound waving/spending principles were erased in the course of ONE generation. It astounds me that the Federal Reserve, banks, and governmental institutions didn't do anything to attempt to stem this tide. This tapped out consumer, combined with ever-burgeoning Federal debt and highly-leveraged and, therefore vulnerable, financial institutions was a clearly obvious recipe for economic calamity.

Common sense prinicples of savings, spending restraint and proper regualtion (read: Derivatives) were not adhered to and now we have what we have.

While Bush is quite culpable and richly deserves the contempt being heaped upon him, he is merely the Village Idiot. The man most responsible for this mess is clearly the jew Alan Greenspan. Had Greenspan been a Gentile, it is likely that the media would have served up enough scorn such that it would have been necessary for him to go into hiding for fear of his life. But, as a tribesman, the media will not attack him at near the level he deserves. They will, at all costs, deflect attention that the root of our crisis is the direct result of an almost exclusively jewish Federal Reserve System and its former inept jewish Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Location: Somewhere at the Andes mountains, with deep gratitude for New orleans

Posts: 957

Re: UK could collapse in 2 weeks(my opinion piece)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wuzzarepublikan

This all occurred in a period of sustained economic GROWTH. The entire value system of "saving for a rainy day", buying only what one could reasonably afford and other sound waving/spending principles were erased in the course of ONE generation. It astounds me that the Federal Reserve, banks, and governmental institutions didn't do anything to attempt to stem this tide. This tapped out consumer, combined with ever-burgeoning Federal debt and highly-leveraged and, therefore vulnerable, financial institutions was a clearly obvious recipe for economic calamity.

Common sense prinicples of savings, spending restraint and proper regualtion (read: Derivatives) were not adhered to and now we have what we have.

While Bush is quite culpable and richly deserves the contempt being heaped upon him, he is merely the Village Idiot. The man most responsible for this mess is clearly the jew Alan Greenspan. Had Greenspan been a Gentile, it is likely that the media would have served up enough scorn such that it would have been necessary for him to go into hiding for fear of his life. But, as a tribesman, the media will not attack him at near the level he deserves. They will, at all costs, deflect attention that the root of our crisis is the direct result of an almost exclusively jewish Federal Reserve System and its former inept jewish Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Don't blame Bush, frankly he doesn't know what's going on there, none of us know, maybe Paulson and Bernanke. Going back to the point of Buffscotman, yes, The combined debts of Iceland's banks overwhelmed the governement.. The icelandic banks had some 80 billion euros in debt, while the country's central bank had 5 billion in reserves, ridiculous. In the case of the U.K., well when you don't produce ANYTHING other than paper shufflers, actors, degenerate writers, and lawyers, thats what you end up with.
P.S. Again great opening post by Buffscotman

The icelandic banks had some 80 billion euros in debt, while the country's central bank had 5 billion in reserves, ridiculous.

Well the problem was that they had debts in Euros, not Icelandic kronas. The icelandic government cannot print Euros. If the UK banks are mostly in pounds, no problem, the government can print a bazillion pounds if they wish to.

The disappearing savings quota in USA is only logical, its not rational to save in the us banking system, if you save all you do are committing economic suicide. The only way to save your money is to invest in something tangible or into a leveraged fund that uses loaned money to boost returns, thereby partially using the fractional reserve system against itself.

Well the problem was that they had debts in Euros, not Icelandic kronas. The icelandic government cannot print Euros. If the UK banks are mostly in pounds, no problem, the government can print a bazillion pounds if they wish to.

The disappearing savings quota in USA is only logical, its not rational to save in the us banking system, if you save all you do are committing economic suicide. The only way to save your money is to invest in something tangible or into a leveraged fund that uses loaned money to boost returns, thereby partially using the fractional reserve system against itself.

Yes and because if you invest in something.. and another using fractional reserve lending can invest the same amount although only putting down 1/30th... we don't really have capitalism. We have a fractional reserve type of free market.

Anytime you find a good opportunity in the economy, others can flood it with borrowed money until the profits are gone from that business.

Don't blame Bush, frankly he doesn't know what's going on there, none of us know, maybe Paulson and Bernanke. Going back to the point of Buffscotman, yes, The combined debts of Iceland's banks overwhelmed the governement.. The icelandic banks had some 80 billion euros in debt, while the country's central bank had 5 billion in reserves, ridiculous. In the case of the U.K., well when you don't produce ANYTHING other than paper shufflers, actors, degenerate writers, and lawyers, thats what you end up with.
P.S. Again great opening post by Buffscotman

Thanks, and your post is dead on you understand the way economies work with real production. Something 99% of economists I see don't understand. Rolled steel will always be saleable on the world market. The price may go up or go down, but its something tangible and useful. Chemical complexes producing plastics, always useful.

Loan officers, real estate agents, lawyers, accountants, bankers, bureaucrats and such are in every society and needed for an internal economy. But they don't produce the original wealth that the society has.

The muslims have a far better economic system than European nations. Let me go through a comparison..

Sound money system(gold, oil) / Fractional reserve banking

Low to no taxes / confiscatory levels of taxation

Pro development / green, anti-development

Monarchy and dictatorships / democracy

Monarchies and dictatorships build up wealth over the long run. And wealth grows exponentially. This is their 'rainy day' fund for if the economy gets in trouble, they want to be able to stay in power. Meanwhile its always in the interest of an elected politician to spend as much as possible during his 4 years. In fact from the 4 year perspective its always worth it to go farther into debt. It is never worth it to make a rainy day fund, as the next politician will simply spend it and look good.

Let me do another calculation a good investor living in Saudi Arabia, versus a good investor living in Europe. The Saudi pays 0% taxes the whole way, the European 40% taxes on any gains at the end of each year. They both earn 12% return for 40 years, and both had a rich grandfather who left them 10 million to start with.

At the end of 40 years the European man has grown the wealth from 10 million to 80 million dollars. The Saudi has grown it to over 400 million dollars.

These are reasons why we see these rich muslims buying up things, and us begging them for help financially.